My Response to Obama Conspiracy

“The whole thing is an arcane technicality that a wise nation would have done away with long ago. To make a holy fuss over it at this late date is nothing but transparent politicing[sic]. Now, Leonard, put that in your pipe and smoke it.”

That is the level of intellect found on the Obama Conspiracy forum . . . concluding that alienage in the highest executive office is an ‘arcane technicality,’ rather than a prudent assurance against foreign influence in that office.

Or, how about Dr. Conspiracy’s ‘googled’ quotes on the ‘citizen of the United States at the time of adoption’ clause being proof of worthy foreigners allowed access to the presidency, e.g., Barack Hussein Obama. True, there were a few foreign-born leaders of great note during the Revolutionary War. However, they had established themselves as members of colonial society as well as supporters of the new Constitutional Republic, and therefore citizens at the time of adoption.

Even today, naturalization law offers an alien in our military, fighting for our country, citizenship upon completion of his service.

It is clear from context and the needs of the times, the ‘at the time of adoption’ clause was to allow sons of British subjects, and/or members of colonial society proven loyal to the cause U.S. citizenship upon dissolution of ties with Great Britain.

Following are legal proofs and examples including:

  • Comment on Gov. Morris and Justice Story vis a’ vis Article II
  • Two Important Cases on Point
  • Hamilton versus John Jay
  • Federalist Papers
  • Action of Common Law, versus Natural Rights in a Constitutional Republic 
  • Derivative Citizenship of Wives, 19th Amendment, and the 1922 Cable Act
  • Obama as Dual Citizen, or Citizen of the World?
  • Louisiana Governor Bobbie Jindal a natural born citizen? No.
  • Barack Hussein Obama, “Citizen of the World”

“Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading.” United States v Prudder, 424 F. 2d 1021(5thCir. 1970), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 831 (1970)

Your citations of Gov. Morris and Justice Story are on point, but do not tell the whole story. First, would you agree that upon adoption of the constitution, British subjects of the 13 colonies, states, or commonwealths, became U.S. citizens?

Therefore, after the ‘time of adoption,’ would a British subject become a citizen? No, only upon application of immigration and naturalization law.

The question, therefore, is if a U.S. citizen mother confers not only U.S. citizenship by statute, but produces a ‘natural born’ citizen if the child has an alien father.

The answer is ‘No’ for two reasons, because; 1) application of law is required to remove, or isolate that alienage, and; 2) the law applicable to Article II, adopted in 1787, did not recognize U.S. citizenship of a mother married to an alien unless abandoned and specific residency requirements were met. Even then, the child still had foreign allegiance through the alien father until reaching the age of majority.

The intent of the framers in cobbling together the term of art ‘natural born citizen’ was to limit the presidency to a citizen without foreign alienage.

Here are two important cases on point

On December 2, 1793, Albert Gallatin of Pennsylvania took the oath of office in the Senate. His eligibility was then challenged on the grounds that he did not meet the minimum nine years of citizenship as constitutionally required for Senators ( http://tinyurl.com/mkru86

The Case of Mr. Smith. “Mr. SMITH founds his claim upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony” ( http://tinyurl.com/lhy32a ).
“If he were a minor, his consent was involved in the decision of that society to which he belonged by the ties of nature. [Cf. Vattel, Law of Nations, Book 1, § 220 “1. The children are bound by natural ties to the society in which they were born; they are under an obligation to show themselves grateful for the protection it has afforded to their fathers, and are in a great measure indebted to it for their birth and education. They ought, therefore, to love it, as we have already shown (§ 122), to express a just gratitude to it, and requite its services as far as possible, by serving it in turn. We have observed above (§ 212), that they have a right to enter into the society of which their fathers were members.]   http://tinyurl.com/kwjvqm 
Mr. SMITH being then, at the declaration of independence, a minor, but being a member of that particular society, he became, in my opinion, bound by the decision of the society, with respect to the question of independence and change of Government”  http://tinyurl.com/kwjvqm

Now, how would you then approach a situation concerning a person of distinguished contribution to the Revolution who was foreign-born, as Justice Story described? By “adopted country,” I suggest that they were not ‘native-born’ but recent sojourners who not only established residency, but also were patriots to the cause of Independence.

In answer, please examine Hamilton’s first draft of Article II’s Eligibility Clause, from Hamilton’s Article IX, Section 1:

“No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.”

 Now consider the changes made using John Jay’s term of art, ‘natural born citizen.’

“No person except a Natural Born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States at the time of adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.”

Federalist Papers

In Federalist No. 62, Alexander Hamilton or James Madison explained that senators “ought” to be free “from the prepossessions and habits incident to foreign birth and education”, due to their “transactions with foreign nations”, so the nine-year citizenship requirement is a “prudent mediocrity” between totally excluding naturalized citizens and admitting them too quickly, “which might create a channel for foreign influence on the national councils”:

“. . . the nature of the senatorial trust, . . . participating immediately in transactions with foreign nations, ought to be exercised by none who are not thoroughly weaned from the prepossessions and habits incident to foreign birth and education. The term of nine years appears to be a prudent mediocrity between a total exclusion of adopted citizens, whose merits and talents may claim a share in the public confidence, and an indiscriminate and hasty admission of them, which might create a channel for foreign influence on the national councils.”
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed62.asp

According to 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, § 301, Barack Hussein Obama, a citizen of Indonesia by derivative naturalization, reinstated his U.S. citizenship from birth under 8 U.S.C. 1401 or 1409, by meeting the required five-years of continuous residency from age 14.

Applying the nine-year requirement, Obama became eligible to be a senator at age 28. However, due to his being a British subject at birth, he will never be eligible to the presidency. His native-born status does not rise to natural born citizenship due to alienage, and the determination of citizenship at birth by statute, not the citizenship and allegiance of the father.

In Federalist No. 64, from March 7, 1788, John Jay wrote that the President and the Senate could possibly make a corrupt treaty that would be “null and void by the law of nations”, but “[e]very consideration that can influence the human mind”, including “family affections and attachments”, provides for “their fidelity”:

“It will not be in the power of the President and Senate to make any treaties by which they and their families and estates will not be equally bound and affected with the rest of the community; . . . But in such a case, if it should ever happen, the treaty so obtained from us would, like all other fraudulent contracts, be null and void by the law of nations. . . . With respect to their responsibility, it is difficult to conceive how it could be increased. Every consideration that can influence the human mind, such as honor, oaths, reputations, conscience, the love of country, and family affections and attachments, afford security for their fidelity.”  http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed64.asp

Action of Common Law, versus Natural Rights in a Constitutional Republic

Still evident in the 1948 British Nationality Act is the Possession of all production and issue from the dominion of the monarchy and its subjects. A good discussion of the history of common law on subjects is in Jill Pryor’s Yale Law Review Article, The Natural Born Citizen Clause: An Approach for Resolving Two-Hundred Years of Uncertainty, http://yalelawjournal.org/images/pdfs/pryor_note.pdf

However, what is the controlling power of conferring nationality in a constitutional republic? Is it Statute or Legislation? Some point to Art 1, Sec. 8. Is it the power and incontrovertible action of jus solis birth? One of you quoted Madison’s certainty of ‘place of birth.’  

In a Republic, a citizen is an equal member of the polity.

The state does not determine nationality and allegiance, but the free choice of the citizen father. The ‘ties of nature’ are natural, not pre-determined by the state. The allegiance of a child born to either a citizen or alien is that of the father, period.

There are circumstances where the child of an alien may claim ‘citizenship at birth,’ but first the jurisdiction of any alienage from father, mother, or both must be determined. If alien parents have made proper application with intent to immigrate, the child follows the citizenship of the parents when they are finally naturalized.

Bobbie Jindal’s parents were legal aliens residing in the United States with student visas. They returned to India. Bobbie Jindal may have claimed U.S. citizenship by remaining in the U.S. until reaching the age of majority, but his right to remain an Indian national from birth denies him natural born citizen eligibility. A simple statement confirming this, from Jindal, when asked of presidential intentions would be decimating to Barack Hussein Obama false claim of Article II eligibility.

Derivative Citizenship of Wives, 19th Amendment, and the 1922 Cable Act

It is common knowledge that from the ‘time of adoption’ to 1922, a U.S. maiden who married an alien ‘threw in her lot’ with the husband and became his nationality. No clearer is this illustrated in Perkins vs. Elg (1939) in which the wife automatically was naturalized by act of the husband, thus Miss Elg (born in 1907) being a natural born citizen.

Perkins involved protecting the nationality rights of a native-born minor. However, the 1907 Act distinguished the inchoate ‘dual nationality’ of a minor expatriated by parents, but maintained that a U.S. citizen marrying an alien husband constituted voluntary expatriation.

The debates after the 19th Amendment discussed the high desertion rate of alien husbands (e.g., Obama, Sr. abandoning Dunham) and historic ‘derivative naturalization’ of wives called ‘marital expatriation’ of wives a ‘gender-based double standard.’ Thus, the 1922 Act gave American women a ‘Nationality of Their Own.’

Some scholars, wise in the law, cautioned that the Act would raise complications of domicile and issues of taxation and property. In addition, what would happen if the alien husband became an enemy of the state? The fuzzy, feel-good legislation created conflicts of law apparent then, as felt now.

In our discussion, we have a maiden of U.S. citizenship marrying a Muslim/Marxist alien. Our argument is that natural law indelibly marks the son with the natural ties of the father, thus making him ineligible to the presidency. The modern preservation of the wife’s maiden citizenship confers citizenship at birth but, for over one-hundred years past the ‘time of adoption’ and the laws known by the framers, that woman was expatriated and the son a natural born British subject, until established the woman was abandoned and had U.S. residency. (See the 1795 Naturalization Act http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/naturalization/ )

Alexander Morse wrote “Any doctrine which recognizes a double citizenship or double nationality attempts to perpetuate a political hybrid, which is as abnormal and monstrous as its prototype in the natural world: and the expression even must disappear as soon as that wise and judicious system which Savigny almost created becomes universal. The basis of this system is £he principle which insists that there should be a harmony rather than a conflict of laws. The contrary principle, which seeks to perpetuate a conflict of laws, is a relic of barbarism, and is rapidly disappearing from view.”

Again in 2006, AMENDING THE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN REQUIREMENT: GLOBALIZATION AS THE IMPETUS AND THE OBSTACLE by SARAH P. HERLIHY, wrote about amending the Constitution for the very same reason. 

Alexander Morse wrote “Any doctrine which recognizes a double citizenship or double nationality attempts to perpetuate a political hybrid, which is as abnormal and monstrous as its prototype in the natural world: and the expression even must disappear as soon as that wise and judicious system which Savigny almost created becomes universal. The basis of this system is £he principle which insists that there should be a harmony rather than a conflict of laws. The contrary principle, which seeks to perpetuate a conflict of laws, is a relic of barbarism, and is rapidly disappearing from view.”

 

Obama as Dual Citizen, or Citizen of the World?

“Tonight, I speak to you not as a candidate for President, but as a citizen – a proud citizen of the United States, and a fellow citizen of the world.”

July 24, 2008  Barack Hussein Obama, Berlin

Secretary of State William H. Seward, said: “But the idea of a double allegiance and citizenship united in the same person, and having reference to two separate, independent, and sovereign nations or governments, is simply an impossibility.”

What is, exactly ‘Dual Citizenship?’ I recommend a reading and syllabus of over a dozen cases at ‘Court Rulings on Dual Citizenship,’ http://www.richw.org/dualcit/cases.html

While our State Department and liberal courts tolerate dual citizenship, is there really such a thing? The definition of Citizen always specifies ‘a state, political, or national community.’ It does not say a member of ‘one or more . . . ‘

In fact, under naturalization and nationality laws a new citizen must renounce his past affiliation. Similarly, one who overtly acted as a foreign citizen or naturalized as a foreign citizen was automatically expatriated.

Dual citizenship, a conflict of law introduced by the 1922 Cable Act, is in fact a paradox . . . or, more so, oxymoronic. It is therefore, preferable to interpret Barack Hussein Obama’s nationality at birth as a British subject, until it was established that the father lost legal parentage by abandonment. Then, USC 1401 and the 14th Amendment transferred jurisdiction to U.S. nationality through the U.S. citizen mother. This interpretation conforms with laws from 1787 to this day.

Advertisements

76 Responses to “My Response to Obama Conspiracy”

  1. ellid Says:

    Either provide a citation for that quote from Jefferson or admit that you’re lying. And no, WND or another right wing site is not a citation. It sounds bogus.

    • paralegalnm Says:

      That erroneous quote from P.A. Madison bit me in the ass again. I admitted the error and corrected it . . . I lived in Texas six years, and you don’t call a man a liar unless you want your nose flattened.

      Let’s move on.

  2. Dr. Conspiracy Says:

    The question is whether founders like George Washington, whose father died a British subject before the Revolution, considered themselves natural born citizens or not.

    • paralegalnm Says:

      If you read the Smith case, the holding by James Madison, G. Washington himself came of age (age of decision/majority) and so was a U.S. citizen at the ‘time of adoption.’

  3. Granite Says:

    Re: “and the needs of the times, the ‘at the time of adoption’ clause was to allow sons of British subjects, and/or members of colonial society proven loyal to the cause U.S. citizenship upon dissolution of ties with Great Britain.”

    That may have been the intent, but the actual result was to allow about 60,000 men who were not born in the USA, some of whom were from other countries besides Britain, to be eligible to become president.

    Now, the question is whether the framers, who were willing to allow 60,000 men who were not American born to be eligible temporarily would forbid the US-born children of foreigners from being president PERMANENTLY without telling us. Sure, they might have done it, but not without telling us. They would have said “two citizen parents” right in the constitution. But they did not do that. And the meaning of Natural Born at the time was simply “born in the country.”

    That is why such prominent conservative Senators who are also lawyers as Orren Hatch and Lindsay Graham say that a Natural Born Citizen is simply one who was born in the USA:

    Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said:

    “Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” (December 11, 2008 letter to constituent)

    Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), said:

    “What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)

    • paralegalnm Says:

      Those foreign born are equal to native born because they allied themselves to the Revolution. They were, indeed, ‘citizens’ of the colonies even though not born there . . . the adoption of the constitution made all ‘citizens of the U.S. at the time of adoption’ eligible to the presidency until the first ‘natural born citizens’ reached the 35 year old age required by Article II. The first of those was John Tyler.

      Hatch and, especially, Graham are not authoritative. I have an e-mail from Representative Thaddeus McCotter (R) of Michigan who, at length repeated the unfortunately common error during the 2008 election, plus cited Judge Surrick’s dismissal.

      Everyone seemed to forget that John McCain’s eligibility was based on having a U.S. citizen father and no alienages from Panamanian soil, or a foreign wife for that matter. Obama’s father was a British colonial/protectorate.

  4. Granite Says:

    Re: “Those foreign born are equal to native born because they allied themselves to the Revolution. ”

    What, all 60,000 of them?

    Obama’s father was not a US citizen. True. But the writers of the Constitution did not say “two citizen parents.” They said “Natural Born,” and in dozens of quotations by Americans at the time, Natural Born always referred to citizenship due to the PLACE of birth, and never referred to citizenship being affected by the parents of the child in any way.

    Natural Born had been used for 300 years in Britain and in the American colonies to refer to citizenship due to the place of birth. The writers ofthe Constitution would not have changed that without telling us that there was a change.

    If they had changed the meaning of Natural Born, there would have been articles and letters showing that they used it in a way that was different from the past 300 years, but there are no letters and no articles. Instead, we have the Declaration of Independence which says: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.” Yet the two-parent theory holds that a child born of two US parents in the USA is superior to a child born to one or no US parents in the USA.

    Perhaps the latter is indeed true. Perhaps a child born to US parents is indeed better than a child born to one or two foreigners. BUT, IF that were true, then the writers of the Constitution would have told us that is what they intended.

    I am amused by your assumption that John McCain’s father was a US citizen. All we know is that the man whose name appeared on the birth certificate was a US citizen. We do not know, and we will never know with any presidential candidate, whether the real father was a US citizen short of doing DNA tests on the candidate and on the father (or the remains of the father).

    If the two-parent theory were really to be approved (as likely as the law of gravity being repealed), a court someday would have to grapple with the issue of how to prove that a president’s father was really his father.

    Hatch and Graham may not be definitive, but the odds of getting four Supreme Court votes to call the case and five that Natural Born means “two citizen parents” are pretty low if they do not believe it. In fact, not one of the 535 members of the US Congress (one hundred Senators and 435 in the House) believes it, since they voted UNANIMOUSLY to confirm Obama’s election.

  5. Scientist Says:

    “if you read the history of the time, the concern was about a junior son of a European royal family who, unable to inherit the throne in Europe would come to the US anbd convince people to elect him President. There was never a concern regarding someone born in the US to immigrant parents. No one would ever have considered such a person anything other than eligible, prior to 2008″

    I went on to add that the natural born citizen clause is an anachronism that has no practical, moral or logical value in the modern world.

    I stand by my position and point to the statement made by Orrin Hatch in hearings of the Senate Judiciary Committee in October 2004:

    “As Boise State University Professor John Freemuth explained, the natural born citizenship requirement is something of an artifact from another time. It is time for us – the elected representatives of this nation of immigrants — to begin the process that can result in removing this artificial, outdated, unnecessary and unfair barrier. While there was scant debate on this provision during the Constitutional Convention, it is apparent that the decision to include the natural born citizen requirement in our Constitution was driven largely by the concern over 200 years ago that a European monarch might be imported to rule the United States.

    This restriction has become an anachronism that is decidedly un-American. Consistent with our democratic form of government, our citizens should have every opportunity to choose their leaders free of unreasonable limitations. Indeed, no similar restriction bars other critical members of the government from holding office, including the Senate, the House of Representatives, the United States Supreme Court, or the President’s most trusted cabinet officials.’

    http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=1326&wit_id=51

    • paralegalnm Says:

      So, Article II is an anachronism . . . meaningless, old-fashioned . . . eh?

      Quite the contrary. The malfeasance of Barack Obama only proves the sagacity of the framers, and John Jay in particular.

      Fact: Upon marrying an alien husband, the wife was automatically naturalized to his nationality. That changed, unwisely, in 1922.
      Fact: A son of a British subject, native-born in the United States after the ‘time of adoption,’ is not eligible to the presidency. You can cite Chester Arthur as precedent, but he dodged the legal challenge, as is Obama. Thus, my comment that by not prosecuting or litigating Obama’s Article II eligibility the courts are creating dangerous precedent.

      That ‘silence’ is equated with FRAUD, as in the cited case law in the blog, “Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading.” United States v Prudder, 424 F. 2d 1021(5thCir. 1970), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 831 (1970)

      This dicta from the ‘Great’ Chief Justice John Marshall says it all: “With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it, if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution.” Cohens v. Virginia 19 US 264 (1821)

      How a rational test?

      According to your fallacious definition of natural born citizen, and the idiocy of the Boise professor (Pryor and Herlihy also felt restriction of NBC to only children of U.S. citizen parents ‘unfair’), the U.S. born child of an illegal alien would be eligible to the presidency . . . even though the original intent of the 14th Amendment would have denied U.S. citizenship to the child of alien parents . . . the 14th Amendment was essentially, and unconstitutionally, revised by a liberal judge (Brennan).

      Theoretically, and an analogy to Obama, the media could ignore that ‘anchor’ baby’s Mexican parentage for sixty-six days and an ignorant populace would elect to the presidency a candidate with a Spanish surname, who has Mexican flags hanging in his office and lifetime memberships to MeCha and La Raza. Or, how dangerous would it be electing the son of an African Muslim, a Marxist to boot . . . oh yeah, we just did that.

      Article II was as much assurance the framers could devise to keep the presidency free from dangerous foreign influences. The child of U.S. citizen parents is free from alienages by nature.

  6. Scientist Says:

    Let’s see if you have the guts to post this or will it disappera like all my other posts

    The natural born citizen clause provides no protect. Zero. Zip. Nada. It has NO logical basis. Fact. Let me demonstrate. Suppose we have 3 Presidential candidates. Just to please you, let’s make them all white Christian males born within the US:

    A’s parents were both US citizens, but they took him overseas shortly after birth and he lived his entire life abroad until the age of 50, though never naturalizing in any other country and always keeping his US citizenship and passport. At the age of 50, he returns to the US and when he turns 65, he runs for the White House.”

    B’s mother was a US citizen, but his father was a foreign citizen. he lives his entire life in the US, and receives his education and practices his career here. At 50, he runs for the White House.

    C’s parents were both US citizens. In fact, their ancestors arrived on the Mayflower. He lives his whole life in the US. However, his family has significant business interests in the oil fields of Saudi Arabia and deep ties to the Saudi crown (you may see a resemblance to some recent Presidents). The family has always taken the interests of the Saudi royals into their hearts.

    Under Leonard’s “theory”, A and C are perfectly OK torun, while the tru American, B, is not.

    Wow, that sure makes sense.

    Folks, I trust the American people and agree with Sen hatch. I don’t trust Leonard and his band of mullahs.

    • paralegalnm Says:

      For a ‘scientist’ you certainly lack logic and reason.

      The natural born citizen clause was designed/crafted as assurance against foriegn influence bred into the highest executive office . . . which requires a U.S. citizen, not some bastard hybrid in office as we speak. There is little a child can do to prevent parents from taking him to another country . . . that does not void his birthright citizenship . . . however some think a foreign nationality voids natural born citizenship.

      I hope you appreciate that I don’t agree with that interpretation because there is no law backing that up. True, alienage is introduced and I consider Obama’s reinstatement of U.S. citizenship (dealienage being a function of naturalization law) arguably makes him a naturalized citizen and therefore ineligible. But that is a tangential argument, the direct point being Obama is the son of an alien father, which makes him ineligible from the get go . . . the citizenship of the mother is inconsequential to Article II eligibility, as I have proven over and over.

      I don’t agree with Hatch, and especially Graham . . . I told you McCotter wrote me, not getting it either. Native is different from Natural citizenship . . . you can not conflate the terms. In fact, I blame McCain for refusing to challenge Obama’s electoral votes in January 2009 . . . thus allowing Obama to take the U.S. on this destructive path hurting millions of Americans.

      I suppose you blame G.W. Bush for the economy, when it was entirely the fault of the housing bubble and bank credit crisis created by the Democrat-created C.R.A. and corruption of Fannie Mae.

      • Scientist Says:

        Let me tell you how science works, since you don’t seem to be aware. Science is the process of testing postulates against the real world and accepting that your preconceived ideas might be wrong. If I do an experiment 70 times and get an answer that doesn’t fit with my theory, i have to accept that my theory is wrong. In the law, the empirical, real world test happens in court. When courts rule against you 70 times, that means you are wrong. Period. End of story.

        good bye.

      • paralegalnm Says:

        But this issue hasn’t even made it into the laboratory of justice yet.

        I’m telling you that you can’t conflate ‘native-born’ and ‘natural born.’ So, there is a deep shit problem with this president and people are figuring it out . . . and he’ll have his balls cut off in November, politically speaking. In addition, you can’t compare English Common Law with American Jurisprudence, which includes its own common law, i.e., case law. A Natural Born Subject operates under different principles than a Natural Born Citizen. As I explained, the King owns everything in a monarchy, and the Citizen Father is Primus in a Constitutional Republic. The first is allegiance mandated by the King, and the second is natural right of a free man. The mother only contributes nationality under specific statutory exigent circumstances.

        Last I checked, over a half million people signed one petition wanting an investigation of the eligibility issue. Standard marketing principles recommend multiplying that 500,000 by ten, assuming only 1 in 10 interested parties actually respond. I know how courts work, and how people can be cowards when having to stand up, alone.

      • HistorianDude Says:

        Last point first:

        Regarding the “half million people” who signed the WND petition, I can attest that I myself signed it scores of times using names ranging from “Barack Obama” to “Bozo the Clown.” As such, the petition in question was merely more meaningless grandstanding by Joe Farah. Applying “standard marketing principles” to it is merely adding a horseshit veneer to bullshit.

        The parsing of “subject” and “citizen” was rather explicitly rendered moot in the Wong Kim Ark ratio decidendi, where Justice Gray approvingly quoted Chancellor Kent that “Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.”

        Hence there appears no genuine truth to the assertion that “A Natural Born Subject operates under different principles than a Natural Born Citizen.”

        As to the “conflation” of native-born and natural-born, their effective synonymity is established both through 18th century usage and formal definition. Look for example at how the Commonwealth of Massachusetts used both terms “natural born subject” and “natural born citizen” throughout the 1780’s.

        “An Act For Naturalizing Alexander Moore, and Others Herein Named.”

        “shall be deemed, adjudged, & taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, & entitled to all privileges, liberties, and immunities of natural born subjects.” November 16, 1787

        “An Act For Naturalizing Elisha Bourn and Others, Therein Named.”

        “shall be deemed, adjudged & taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, & entitled to all liberties, privileges & immunities of natural born Citizens.” November 21, 1788

        ”An Act For Naturalizing Nathaniel Skinner and Others Therein Named.”

        “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all liberties privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.“ June 22, 1789

      • paralegalnm Says:

        1) Your phony signatures on WND are evidence of a purile mind. I recollect that the petition was set up to void repeat sigs from the same computer. I’m certain they deleted all of your sigs except for the genuine one, ‘Bozo the Clown.’

        2) Your quote from Chancellor Kent is full of foolish flourish; to the degree that it seems he spent more time grooming the goose feather than trimming the quill. It is all over the place and indefinite. Subject and Citizen are from two different systems of government, as Kent admits. He omitted distinctions, more due to your editing perhaps. In our republic, a freeman citizen can revoke his allegiance and move himself and family to another country; in a monarchy, that is treason.

        We were also discussing statutory citizenship at birth, vis a’ vis the 14th Amendment, and natural born citizenship. You claim the distinction does not exist, and is a moot point because Gray cited the snippet from Kent. That is not how you read case law. Hell, Blackmun cited sources that completely contradicted his holding, but he dismissed them as unhelpful and made his own decision.

        The distinction between a freeman citizen and his bloodline and a monarch’s subject and rights of the King over all issue from within his dominion is clear. The natural born citizen is of a citizen father . . . the citizen at birth subject to statutory provision is jus solis, i.e., the father’s alienage/bloodline/allegiance/jus sanguinis is cancelled out by the state.

        Barack Hussein Obama was a Natural Born British subject, not both subject and citizen . . . the law dealienaged the British father when the father abandoned the family. Because Obama, Jr. was born outside of British dominion, i.e., Hawaii (the real reason the original Birth Certificate is important), Obama, Sr. was required to register the boy with the British secretary of state. That law, a bit of a read, is cited in full in the first entry of this Blog Journal.

        Obama intentionally dismissed the race and heritage of his white mother, embracing his black heritage. He even studied his father’s Marxism and traveled to Kenya, getting involved in his father’s tribal politics. What other proof do you need of the framers intent, to avoid the child of a foreign father.

        Can you imagine a Tory, a loyalist, visiting America fathering a son, to a maiden out of wedlock (Obama was, indeed, a Bastard child), and then returning to England without the boy or mother? Would the boy ever be accepted as eligible to the presidency? Hell no.

  7. Granite Says:

    My position is between paralegalnm and Scientist.

    I believe that Article II currently forbids naturalized citizens from becoming president. I believe that it should be repealed, but that is something for a distant future. Getting two-thirds votes of each house plus three-quarters of the states is not something that is at all likely for the next decade or more.

    I believe with paralegalnm that the Natural Born Citizen clause does have meaning and that it excludes some citizens from becoming president, namely naturalized citizens.

    However, it does not exclude citizens who were born in the USA because the meaning of Natural Born at the time that the Constitution was written was simply “born in the country.” There are NO quotations from American leaders at the time that used the phrase Natural Born to indicate two citizen parents or one citizen parent or that it referred to parents at all. It was always used by Americans (not Swiss or French or others on the Continent of Europe) to refer to citizenship based on the PLACE OF BIRTH.

    And, as i said, if the writers of the Constitution had meant to use Natural Born to indicate two citizen parents, they would have told us. There are no articles or letters indicating that they meant two citizen parents. Therefore the meaning of Natural Born Citizen must refer to the common use of Natural Born at the time, which referred to the place of birth.

  8. Scientist Says:

    Granite: I don’t think you fall between me and Mr “paralegal”, since I agree with your position. I have followed the birthers for some time. They are not friends of the Constitution. Birthers would gladly violate everything else in the Constitution to defend the natural born citizen clause, even against imaginary foes. Do they respect the role given to Congress in certifying and removing Presidents? No. They actually argue that Obama should be removed by unelected judges (a power not given to the Judiciary) and replaced, not by the Vice President, as specified in the Constitution, but by some kind of “special election” (where does that appear in the Constitution?). Have any of the birthers protested the daily violations of the Constitution by recent Presidents, including Obama (continuation of Bush’s warantless wiretapping)? None that I am aware of. So they are no friends of the Constitution, but merely enemies of Obama.

    Let me be crystal clear where I stand:

    1. The clause should be amended out of existence.
    2. Until that happens we are stuck with it, despite the fact that it is as Sen Hatch said, “an anachronism that is decidedly un-American”.
    3. Obama is 100% eligible.
    4. If some future (fictional) President were found to be ineligible it would be a matter for Congress to deal with under the Constitution. They would have to weigh the Constitutional provisions against the specific facts of the case and the possible harm to the country caused by leaving that President in office vs. the trauma of over-riding a free and fair election. Not a simple choice.

  9. Bill Cutting Says:

    Scientist
    Suck it up!
    Obama was born a British Subject and a dual citizen, are you denying him his British birth right?.

    Your postion is not clear just stupid!

    BHO is not the President and does not deserve to be impeached, he is ineligible, a fraud and usurper.

    The American sheople have finally figured this anti colonial marxist out. Spend a buck and pick up this months issue of Forbes magazine, it’s all about allegiance.

    This country is being run by the Ghost of a Kenyan Marxist, BHO Senior.

  10. Granite Says:

    Obama was born a British Subject and a dual citizen, are you denying him his British birth right?.

    IF the writers of the Constitution had intended dual citizenship to affect Natural Born status, they would have told us. In fact, they did not believe that dual nationality had any effect on a person’s loyalty, which in their view stems only from the PLACE of birth.

    Also, it turns out that Thomas Jefferson WAS a dual national, having been voted full citizenship by the revolutionary legislature of France (James Madison too).

    Conservatives believe in strict construction, which means that if a law does not say something, you cannot dream the meaning into the law. Progressives have violated this rule, to be sure. But doing that does not make it right, and a Conservative justice would presumably return to basic principles and NOT hold that a law said something if it did not say it.

    Yet the Natural Born Citizen clause does NOT say “two citizen parents” and it does NOT say “no dual nationals.” Yet despite this omissions, you believe that the clause really excludes some children who were born in the USA. Well, you wouldn’t even get the votes of the Conservative justices on the court. The meaning of Natural Born in America at the time the Constitution was written was simply ‘born in the country.’

  11. Bill Cutting Says:

    “The meaning of Natural Born in America at the time the Constitution was written was simply ‘born in the country.’ ”

    Your conclusions are foolish. Maybe you should aim for an audience that doesn’t know better, like readers of HUFFPO.

    • paralegalnm Says:

      You don’t say . . . crap, all of this legal research and analysis was a futile exercise . . . ‘born in country,’ eh.

      How about we adopt the product of your legal genius and revise Article II to read ‘citizen born in country,’ or how about ‘born a citizen,’ . . . no, that was Alexander Hamilton’s suggestion, replaced by John Jay’s ‘natural born citizen.’

      So, a jus solis birth citizenship is ‘natural born’ . . . no, that requires definition by statute if the father is an alien.

      Maybe we should just revise the 14th Amendment to simply ‘born in country.’ No, one of the chief authors commented that “being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”

      I’m sorry . . . your comment is not even sufficient in legal acumen to merit Huffington Post.

  12. Granite Says:

    Re: ““The meaning of Natural Born in America at the time the Constitution was written was simply ‘born in the country.’ ”

    That is what it meant. Find a quotation from an AMERICAN writing at about the time that the Constitution was written that used “Natural Born” to mean two parents.

    Jay, by the way, was the primary writer of the first Constitution of the state of New York, in 1777, and it used Natural Born this way:

    “”Every foreigner of good character, who comes to settle in the State, having first taken an oath of affirmation or allegiance to the same, may purchase or by other means acquire, hold and transfer land or other real estate, and after one year’s residence, shall be deemed a free denizen thereof, and entitled to all the rights of a natural born subject of this state, except that he shall not be capable of being elected a representative until after two years residence.”

    [edited for length]
    The Constitution does NOT say that two citizen parents are required. It says Natural Born, and there is NO evidence from Americans writing at the time, much less the Federalist Papers, or statutes, that Natural Born referred to two citizen parents.

  13. paralegalnm Says:

    First read my initial research at http://paralegalnm.wordpress.com/2009/02/27/barack-hussein-obama-a-natural-born-subject-of-great-britain/

    You must understand the legal distinction between subject of a monarch and citizen of a republic. The ‘natural’ flow of allegiance is not from the republican government, but the free citizen father.

    1) Read the 1790 Act. Read Vattel, upon which the framers based their naturalization law in order to conform with natural and international law.

    2) Two U.S. citizen parents were not specified. The U.S. citizen father, lawfully married, is all that was required. The father was not a subject, but a free member of that society. Therefore, the father’s allegiance was conferred by natural law, not the tyranny of a monarch’s dominion.

    3) A foreigner, as subject by oath of allegiance did have rights of a natural born subject . . . if born within the king’s dominion, they would be, of course, natural born subjects. The distinction of free denizen versus natural born subject is evident.

    4) Again, until the 1922 Cable Act created the paradox/conflict of law of dual nationality, only the Father’s nationality was of importance, not the place of birth, but the place of his domicile and chosen society, i.e., allegiance.

    The son of an alien, born on U.S. soil, was NOT a U.S. citizen and NOT elibible to the presidency, . . . being born on U.S. soil to a formerly U.S. citizen mother did not create a natural born citizen, but a child subject to the allegiance of the alien father.

    The child of a British loyalist, born on U.S. soil for whatever reason for the sojourn or habitance, was not eligible to the presidency.

  14. natural born citizen party Says:
    • paralegalnm Says:

      The 31-page file deals mostly with FOIA problems with Plaintiff questioning good faith, competence, if not fraudulent acts of agents overseeing public records.

      In one complaint, Plaintiff accuses both parents of BHO of being incapable of conferring U.S. citizenship. My research shows that either 8 USC 1409 or 8 USC 1401, in accordance with 8 USC 1101 definitions, gave BHO U.S. citizenship at birth due to the abandonment and invalid marriage of BHO, Sr.

      I agree that dual-citizenship is a paradox to the sole allegiance that was the intent of the framers in writing the Article II natural born citizen eligibility clause, which can only be achieved through a U.S. citizen father.

      Plaintiff also accuses John McCain of being ineligible due to Colon, Panama not being included as part of the U.S. base. The Senate, in SR511 concluded, correctly, that having U.S. citizen parents, especially a U.S. citizen father, McCain was a natural born citizen. While Colon was technically not part of the U.S. base (Colon being the oldest city in Panama), it was surrounded by the base. In addition, 8 USC 1403 guaranteed John McCain U.S. citizenship.

      In comparison, case law shows a U.S. citizen military father, not active duty, fathering a child with a Panamanian wife does give birth to a dual national.

      Finally, as tradition and history dictate, children born on foreign soil to occupying active military, or diplomats, are not conferred jus solis citizenship/nationality. Thus, McCain was born solely the nationality and allegiance of the father with no alienage requiring naturalization law.

      In comparison, Barack Hussein Obama was born a British subject and a Kenyan through his father. His U.S. citizenship was a contingency allowed due to exigent circumstances, namely the abandonment of the British father and the mother and child meeting Immigration and Nationality Act residency requirements. There is no imaginable way the framers intended the Article II clause to make the son of a British subject eligible to the presidency, regardless of contingency nationality through the mother.

  15. Granite Says:

    Re: The difference between “subject of a monarch and citizen of a republic. The ‘natural’ flow of allegiance is not from the republican government, but the free citizen father.

    Answer: Sure they are different. But what makes a Natural Born Citizen require two citizen parents when a Natural Born Subject does not require any? Who says that it is not the other way around? A Natural Born Subject should have two subject parents and a Natural Born Citizen none.

    If there was to be a sudden change in the meaning of Natural Born (not citizen, which is defined by law), then the writers of the Constitution should have told us. It would have been easy for them to write a paragraph in the Federalist Papers about the new meaning of Natural Born relating to the parents, but there is nothing. Not a word.

    Some of the writers of the Constitution were those who agreed with the Declaration that “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.’ Yet, you hold that they really believed that US-born citizens with two citizen parents are better that US-born citizens with no citizen parents.

    If they had believed that, they would have told us, and they didn’t.

    Re: “1) Read the 1790 Act. ‘

    Answer. I did. It ADDED a new category of Natural Born, birth to two US citizens abroad. It did not change the original meaning of Natural Born, which was simply “born in the country.”

    Re: Read Vattel, upon which the framers based their…”

    Answer. The framers read a lot of other things besides Vattel, who was a specialist in international law. Blackstone was more popular than Vattel, and he held that the meaning of Natural Born was simply born in the country. Besides, Vattel recommended such things as that every country should have a state religion. We did not follow Vattel’s recommendation in that, and there is no evidence that we followed him in the two-parent theory. Not even a letter from one leader to another saying: “Let us follow Vattel on two-citizen parents.” Vattel himself, by the way, never recommends that the leader of a country should even be a citizen, much less an “indigines” (which is what a British translator ten years after the Constitution was written translated as Natural Born Citizen). Vattel gives several examples of countries picking their top leaders from the nobility of other countries, and he never says that that was a bad thing.

    Returning briefly to the difference between subjects and citizens. I have shown that Ben Franklin, John Adams, John Jay etc, used Natural Born Citizen as a synonym to Natural Born Subject in drafts of a treaty with Britain. All Natural Born British subjects visiting the USA were to have the rights and privileges of Natural Born Citizens and vice versa.

  16. Granite Says:

    Re: I agree that dual-citizenship is a paradox to the sole allegiance that was the intent of the framers in writing the Article II natural born citizen eligibility clause, which can only be achieved through a U.S. citizen father.”

    The framers believed with Blackstone that a person could have only one allegiance, not two, and that the criterion for allegiance was the PLACE of birth.

    Madison said: “It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general, place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States.”

    What is the criterion of allegiance in the United States? Place. Not place and blood, but only place, the place of birth.

    And, by the way, Thomas Jefferson was a dual national at the time that he was president. He had been voted full citizenship (not honorary citizenship, but full voting rights and the ability to serve in government) by the French Revolutionary legislature (James Madison too).

    • paralegalnm Says:

      Please read the Mr. Smith case, particularly at http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=211
      There you will find Madison’s quote, which you should compare to the analysis if Dr. Ramsey.

      Madison had to rely on ‘place of birth’ because Smith had fallen through the cracks. His parents were British subjects when they died, before they would have conferred U.S. citizenship upon the minor Smith.

      Place of Birth as the right of a sovereign nation to confer citizenship is the holding in Wong Kim Ark, however, your agreement about dual citizenship creates the paradox when the father is of another allegiance. The alien father’s natural right is superior and voids any sovereign statute.

      Certainly, the framers in carefully composing Article II did not intend that the son of a British loyalist born in the U.S. be eligible to the presidency.
      You must concede that point or our argument is useless.

      You must agree that at that time, and till 1922, the U.S. citizenship of the mother had no contribution . . . unless the alien father abandoned the family, or died. Being the law at the time of the adoption of Article II, modern contribution of dual nationality through a wife’s maiden nationality is not applicable. Therefore, under the laws of 1787 and one-hundred-thirty-five years hence, Dunham’s U.S. citizenship was void. Obama, Sr’s British nationality was the nationality of the son, even if born on U.S. soil.

      The decision of Madison to make Smith a U.S. citizen was a contingency due to exigent circumstances, not the rule.

  17. Bill Cutting Says:

    “You must concede that point or our argument is useless.”

    I vote useless, you have a hard core obot on your hands spreading misinformation, just like the bearded commentor above, wearing the Village People’s costume.

    Some good commnets by Mick and Steve on this subject, at this legal blog
    http://volokh.com/2010/08/31/the-ultimate-legal-blog-comment/

    • paralegalnm Says:

      I like Volokh’s site. In fact, I copied in full one of his articles in this WordPress blog site, fully attributed.

      Ed Darrell is a familiar name.

      First, ‘Bastard’ is no longer used in the modern legal lexicon. It was eliminated from inheritance and succession laws. Therefore, a son born ‘out of wedlock’ is entitled to his portion of an estate.

      The ‘native-born’ of a country may, or may not be of the nation’s citizens. Vattel made it clear that a nation can only replenish itself through children of its citizens, not children of aliens. The latter is, in fact, an invasion and dilution of soveriegnty.

      One poster quoted Hamiliton in Federalist Papers #68, “Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one querter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union?”

      SBD’s comment is quite thorough. Paschal’s citation is useful, but the others at times miss the mark.

  18. Granite Says:

    Re: “There you will find Madison’s quote, which you should compare to the analysis if Dr. Ramsey.”

    Nevertheless, Madison’s quote reflects the view held by Blackstone that a person could have only one allegiance, and both Madison and Blackstone say that the criterion for that allegiance is PLACE.

    Ramsay discussed what makes a CITIZEN, not what makes a person Natural Born. He never uses the words Natural Born in that essay, but he uses them in other writings, and in them he seems to be using them like all the other Americans writing at the time. He certainly never said that Natural Born was no longer a geographic term and now referred to the parents of the citizen.

    Yes, he believed that parents affected citizenship. But that is no longer an issue. Citizenship is defined by the 14th Amendment and by citizenship laws. Citizenship laws change, and the definition of who becomes a citizen changed with the 14th Amendment.

    But the original meaning of Natural Born did not change. It was ALWAYS used by Americans to mean “born in the country.” It was never used by Americans to refer to the parents of a person.

    Vattel may have thought differently, but Vattel was not an American, and he recommended some things that we did not follow. Therefore there is NO proof that the Americans who wrote the Constitution followed the two-parent theory. They simply put together the common used expression “Natural Born” (which was far more commonly used than “native born” at the time) and the word Citizen.

    There is no evidence to believe that they adopted a new definition for the words Natural Born. If they had, they would certainly have told us.

    Re: “when the father is of another allegiance. The alien father’s natural right is superior and voids any sovereign statute.”

    Where are you getting this crap from? Natural Law theory?

    Say that a US man was a dual citizen of Germany, and his father was German. He, however, was born in the USA. In WWII, the man is expected to fight for the USA and to be loyal to it, and if he wasn’t loyal to it, that would be a crime. How can this be if you hold that the alien father’s natural right is superior? In the USA, the fact that there is a foreign law affecting citizenship is, as they say in New York, dreck. we simply do not allow foreign citizenship laws to affect our laws, and a damn good thing too. Otherwise foreign countries would be pulling our chain all the time.

    And besides, Thomas Jefferson WAS a dual national of the USA and France (made a full citizen of France, with voting rights and the right to serve in the legislature). To be sure, his presumed father was an American, but TJ was still a dual national.

    By the way, on the alleged impact of the father’s citizenship on the child. Is that the legal father, or do you insist that it should be the real father? If the former, how is there real effect on the child? If the latter, how does a candidate prove who his real father was without DNA tests? If DNA tests and the father is dead, does the candidate have to dig up the remains?

  19. Granite Says:

    Re: “The framers in carefully composing Article II did not intend that the son of a British loyalist born in the U.S. would be eligible to the presidency 35 years later.”

    i did not reply to this because i do not understand what you are getting at. Suppose we remove the word ‘son’ from your phrase.

    Did the founders intent for the actual loyalists to be eligible to be president (so long as they were citizens of a US state, 35 and had lived in the USA for 14 years?

    Well, they could certainly have said “a loyalist is not eligible.” But they didn’t. Why not?

    Are murderers eligible to be president? Sure, so long as they are Natural Born Citizens. Why didn’t the founder say ‘no murderers,” or “n criminals.’ Because it is not needed. Either we voters are smart enough to decide that for ourselves, or we are not, and we must suffer the consequences of our decision.

    • paralegalnm Says:

      I edited for my ‘double negative’ in the “son of a British loyalist born in the U.S.” example.

      Obviously, a son of a British subject after the ‘at the time of adoption clause’ would have resulted in the son, although meeting your ‘native-born’ criteria, being a British subject, not a U.S. citizen.

      The monarchy no longer could call America part of its dominion, and British law made foreign-born children of their subjects natural born subjects of the monarchy.

      Only recently, have liberal judges (‘liberal’ being a legal term defined as interpreting law beyond the boundaries of intended meaning) ignored the ‘under the jurisdiction thereof’ clause of the 14th Amendment, as well as eliminating the distinction between ‘legal alien’, i.e., under U.S. jurisdiction and ‘illegal alien’, i.e., under foreign jurisdiction.

      This point, and abundant citation of law, has been ignored by the ‘Obots’ . . . who are either too stupid to understand these legal distinctions, or too partisan to recognize them as fact . . . which suggests they are both, stupid partisans.

      As for relying solely upon the vote, that is Judge Surrick’s sad misinterpretation of the Political Questions Doctrine. Let the voters determine if Obama is constitutionally eligible, or not . . . just keep the question out of my court. However, the court determines constitutional law, not the voters.

      Henceforth, their posts will remain as evidence of their stupidity, and no further posts will be approved.

  20. Bill Cutting Says:

    “Say that a US man was a dual citizen of Germany, and his father was German. He, however, was born in the USA. In WWII, the man is expected to fight for the USA and to be loyal to it, and if he wasn’t loyal to it, that would be a crime. How can this be if you hold that the alien father’s natural right is superior?”

    This question was asked and answered a long time ago ( 1916 ), you must be a new obot. bob?

    Proferssor Henry J. Fletcher, University of Minn. Law Review Founder

    “Our Country Divided”

    http://tinyurl.com/2e37cj8

  21. Bill Cutting Says:

    “By the way, on the alleged impact of the father’s citizenship on the child. Is that the legal father, or do you insist that it should be the real father? If the former, how is there real effect on the child? If the latter, how does a candidate prove who his real father was without DNA tests? If DNA tests and the father is dead, does the candidate have to dig up the remains?”

    BHO2 said he was seeded by a British subject, we believe him!!!!

  22. Bill Cutting Says:

    “By the way, on the alleged impact of the father’s citizenship on the child. Is that the legal father, or do you insist that it should be the real father? If the former, how is there real effect on the child? If the latter, how does a candidate prove who his real father was without DNA tests? If DNA tests and the father is dead, does the candidate have to dig up the remains?”

    BHO2 said he was seeded by a British subject, we believe him!

  23. CDR Kerchner Says:

    Great essay.

    More on the Alexander Hamilton vs. John Jay suggestions for the minimum level of type of acceptable Citizenship status for the eligibility part of the presidential eligibility clause in Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution is discussed in this essay.

    Is Being a Born Citizen of the United States Sufficient to be President of the United States and Commander in Chief of Our Military? The Founders and Framers Emphatically Decided It Was Not!
    http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/09/is-being-born-citizen-of-united-states.html

    CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
    Lead Plaintiff, Kerchner et al v Obama/Congress/Pelosi et al

  24. Occams Razor and Presidential Eligibility « drkatesview Says:

    […] by the State Department.  Problems with dual citizenship and the Presidency are described here, but generally the United States ‘tolerates’ dual citizenship but does not recognize or […]

  25. natural born citizen party Says:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/38246616/USDC-DC-08-2234-Doc-44-Main-DOJ-resp-to-Strunk-SURREPLY

  26. Granite Says:

    Re: “BHO2 said he was seeded by a British subject, we believe him!!!!”

    But the rule would not apply only to Obama. It would apply to all presidents and presidential candidates. So, if the rule is that the word of the candidate is sufficient, then they all would get a free pass by simply saying that X was their father.

    If we accept their word as to who their father was, then why not accept it as to the place of birth? (We actually have accepted most presidents’ claims as to their place of birth until Obama, and in his case even the official birth certificate of Hawaii is not sufficient for some people.)

    The US Congress, which confirmed Obama’s election unanimously, the chief justice of the USA, who swore Obama in, and the Electoral College, which gave him the full 365 votes he won in the popular election (despite a campaign by birthers and two-fers to have them change their votes) were all aware of the dual nationality and Kenyan father situations.

    You have not so far shown a SINGLE American writer at the time of the Constitution who used the phrase Natural Born to refer to two citizen parents or, in fact, to refer to the parents at all. I can show a dozen quotes in which American leaders at the time simply used it the way that they had always used it under the British. If they had changed the meaning of Natural Born, they would have told us.

    There are problems of dual nationality, to be sure. But they do not affect US citizenship, nor do they affect US citizens’ responsibilities under US law.

    • paralegalnm Says:

      1) The law relies on the ‘putative’ father. The surname and perception of the son is the rule followed.
      DNA evidence that Marshall Davis or Malcolm X, forty years later, is the true father, it is too late to change ‘at birth’ citizen status.

      2) Place of Birth is usually documented by a witness, a doctor, and in modern times, a licensed birthing facility. In Obama’s case, we have proven a Hawaiian C.O.L.B. will be produced after registration with information provided by only one parent. See HRS § 338-5
      Obama has refused to release a $12 Birth Certificate.

      3) Actually, seventy-seven (77) congressmen, including John McCain, were informed that Obama’s dual citizenship and British father conflicted with Article II natural born citizenship, but like the rest of the population, ‘native-birth’ was assumed to be the basis of ‘natural born citizenship.’ It even took me two weeks of part-time research to realize there was a distinction. They were also informed that Obama’s electoral votes could be challenged on Jan 9th, 2009, but they didn’t do it, which I charge McCain with negligence in his failure to do so. See my first blog for details. Only one congressman, McCotter from Michigan responded, parroting Judge Surrick and the C.O.L.B. None of the congressmen did due diligence.

      4) 99% of native-born citizens are also natural born. In 1866, several congressmen directly involved with the writing of the 14th Amendment, defining citizenship at birth, denied dual citizenship and specified that a natural born citizen was of U.S. parents with no foreign ties. This is also in my first blog.

      I recommend you read it before broadcasting your ignorance on the subject.

  27. natural born citizen party Says:

    09/28/2010 MINUTE ORDER granting 43 Motion for Leave to File Surreply. It is hereby ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. Signed by Judge Richard J. Leon on 9/28/10. (lcrjl2) (Entered: 09/28/2010)

  28. Granite Says:

    Deleted because Granite is an idiot.

  29. Granite Says:

    Re: ‘we have proven a Hawaiian C.O.L.B. will be produced after registration with information provided by only one parent. See HRS § 338-5…”

    Answer: But not a Hawaiian COLB that says on it “born in Hawaii.” That is NOT allowed under Hawaiian law.

    [Deleted because Granite is an idiot]

  30. paralegalnm Says:

    You will be cured of idiocy after you read the Hawaiian law cited, and my first blog on Obama being a Natural Born British subject.

  31. Granite Says:

    The reason that no one but idiots believes birthers is because they do not discuss. They simply present their opinions as facts or the law, and they cut off anyone who presents the facts.

    The law that you cite is this one:

    [§338-17.8] Certificates for children born out of State.

  32. Granite Says:

    As Yale Law Review put it: “It is well settled that “native-born” citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born. It is also clear that persons born abroad of alien parents, who later become citizens by naturalization, do not. “ (Jill A. Pryor, Yale Law Review, 1988)

  33. paralegalnm Says:

    When you start a statement with ‘it is clear,’ or ‘it is well-settled,’ that which follows is usually a lie or obfuscation.

    You must define Natural Born Citizen downwards from Article II, not upwards from contemporary or obtuse sources.

    By Pryor’s standard (and I did read all of her article, and cited it in my first Obama blog), a child born on U.S. soil of an illegal Mexican parent/father is a natural born citizen.

    Blood, soil, sovereign jurisdiction . . . all distinctions of law ignored by idiots in the law. By idiots, that includes Justice Brennan in the Plyler case . . . an unconstitutional holding vis a’ vis Art I, Sec. 8.

  34. Granite Says:

    Re: The law that you cite is this:

    §338-5 Compulsory registration of births. Within the time prescribed by the department of health, a certificate of every birth shall be substantially completed and filed with the local agent of the department in the district in which the birth occurred, by the administrator or designated representative of the birthing facility, or physician, or midwife, or other legally authorized person in attendance at the birth; or if not so attended, by one of the parents.

    That says that births must be registered. It also says who has to register. It does not say that Hawaii must issue a birth certificate that says on it BORN IN HAWAII. It is not allowed in Hawaii to issue a birth certificate that indicates that a person was born in Hawaii when the person was NOT born in Hawaii.

    Answer: Yes, and there have been federal court rulings that say exactly this, that the US-born child of an illegal immigrant is a Natural Born Citizen. Don’t be so shocked. It is purely a geographical term. A child born in Ohio is Ohio-born regardless of whether his parents were illegal or legal.

  35. paralegalnm Says:

    When 338-5 is relied on, there is no birth certificate . . . period. Get a clue.

    As for the numerous federal cases applying ‘natural born citizen’ in cases when ‘native-born’ would suffice, they did not do a proper analysis of the intention of John Jay, Hamilton, Madison, et al when they chose that unique term of art in Article II. They just carelessly conflated it with native born.

    An analysis of the only U.S. law relying or requiring ‘natural born citizen’ versus the numerous laws where ‘born a citizen,’ ‘citizen at birth’, or ‘native born’ applies, will reveal the intent of the framers, a child born of a U.S. father with no alienage, i.e., foreign intrigue or influence.

  36. Granite Says:

    Re: “An analysis of the only U.S. law relying or requiring ‘natural born citizen’ versus the numerous laws where ‘born a citizen,’ ‘citizen at birth’, or ‘native born’ applies, will reveal the intent of the framers, a child born of a U.S. father with no alienage, i.e., foreign intrigue or influence.”

    If that were true, then the US Congress would not have confirmed Obama’s election UNANIMOUSLY.

    The meaning of Natural Born was not carelessly conflated with Native Born. The two were synonyms.

    Re: “When 338-5 is relied on, there is no birth certificate . . . period. Get a clue.”

    • paralegalnm Says:

      I wrote to 77 congressmen, twice . . . including John McCain. None of them had a clue. For too long, natural born and native born have been carelessly used interchangeably. Some of them now are getting it. Hell, it took me two weeks of research, in my spare time, to discover that even though Obama was a citizen at birth, it did not mean he was a natural born citizen.

      One explanation is that 99% of all those born in the U.S., except those of illegal aliens, are natural born citizens. The distinction between native (soil/statute) and natural (blood/natural law) only comes into play when analyzing Article II and the creation of the term of art natural born citizen for that one law.

      A 338-5 is used when there is no data from a licensed birthing facility, e.g., a birth certificate. The clerk relies solely on the information given, verbally, by one parent. That is how a Kenyan-born Obama could have been registered in Hawaii.

  37. Granite Says:

    Re: “A 338-5 is used when there is no data from a licensed birthing facility, e.g., a birth certificate. The clerk relies solely on the information given, verbally, by one parent. That is how a Kenyan-born Obama could have been registered in Hawaii.”

    That is how he could be registered in Hawaii. But that is NOT how that he could be registered with a birth certificate that says “born in Hawaii’ on it. Yes, if you were born outside of a hospital, you can get a birth certificate. But for that birth certificate to say that the person was born in Hawaii on it, there would have had to have been witnesses.

    AND, there is evidence that Obama was born in a hospital, in Kapiolani. That is what Obama and his sister (who was misquoted once by UPI but always said Kapiolani) and the governor of Hawaii, and this witness http://www.buffalonews.com/incoming/article137495.ece all said Kapiolani.

  38. Granite Says:

    Re: “wrote to 77 congressmen, twice . . . including John McCain. None of them had a clue. For too long, natural born and native born have been carelessly used interchangeably.”

    The 77 were right and you were wrong. The meaning of Natural Born at the time that the Constitution was written referred only to place. There was never an article or a letter from framer to framer saying “Natural Born, meaning two citizen parents’ or anything like that.

    Here is an example of how Natural Born was used at the time: ““Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by the birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration.”

    Since there was no naturalization, there were only two categories of people in a state (not counting slaves and Indians, of course), and those were aliens and Natural Born citizens. Natural born refers to the citizens who were born in the state. It does not refer to persons born of two citizen parents. The quotation is from St. George Tucker, View of the Constitution of the United States with Selected Writings.http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=advanced_search.php

    And here is Alexander Hamilton: “The position is founded on that clause of the British act of navigation, which forbids any but a natural-born or naturalized subject to exercise the occupation of a merchant or factor, in any of the British dominions in Asia, Africa, and America.’

    Yes, it refers to subjects, but that is irrelevant. There are only two categories listed Natural Born and naturalized. If Natural Born meant born to citizen parents there would have to be three categories: naturalized citizens, citizens due to the place of birth and citizens due to their parents.

    You said: “One explanation is that 99% of all those born in the U.S., except those of illegal aliens, are natural born citizens.”

    Answer. Of the children born in the USA only the children of foreign diplomats do not become US citizens at birth. Even the citizens of illegal aliens are Natural Born Citizens. There has even been a federal court that stated this in its ruling. But this is hardly surprising. It is like ruling that all the children born in Ohio are Ohio-born. The MEANING of Natural Born was “born in the country.”

    • paralegalnm Says:

      You can not apply British law and Natural Born Subject to John Jay’s ‘natural born citizen.’ Also, Hamilton suggested ‘born a citizen’ for Article II, but it was too vague and ‘natural born citizen’ was used instead.

      John Jay was using Vattel as an authority on ‘ties of nature’ and citizenship devolving from the father as a natural right. Statute, by a sovereign state, can approve or deny soil birth citizenship to whomever it wants. Current granting of citizenship at birth to children of illegal aliens, vis a’ vis misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment, is unconstitutional. Constitutional scholars and the writers of the 14th Amendment understood the ‘under the jurisdiction thereof’ clause to mean no foriegn attachments, i.e., jus sanguinis alienage from a foriegn father.

      Citizenship was denied to children of military, diplomats, and sojourners . . . visitors without legal domicile or intent to immigrate.

      Your suggestion that the son of an illegal alien, unconstitutionally granted citizenship at birth, could run for president is outrageous and contrary to the laws and intent of the framers and their time.

      The state must recognize and respect the nationality of the father, even if the child is born on it soil. Otherwise, there is conflict of law which is clearly evident in our dealings with Mexico and dual citizens and illegal aliens. The only reason the 14th Amendment is not enforced is social pressures due to long term lack of enforcement.

      Lack of enforcement and social pressure is not the constitutional provision for revising and amending Article II.

  39. Granite Says:

    Re: “You can not apply British law and Natural Born Subject to John Jay’s ‘natural born citizen.’ Also, Hamilton suggested ‘born a citizen’ for Article II, but it was too vague and ‘natural born citizen’ was used instead.”

    Answer: Since both Hamilton and Jay use Natural Born as synonyms for native born (which was not a popular phrase at the time), they were referring to the place of birth.

  40. paralegalnm Says:

    Natural Born refers to ‘by blood,’ or jus sanguinis. Native-born refers to dominion and jurisdiction, jus solis, established by law.

    Native was used with Natural prior to the constitution because they were the same when dealing with a subject to the monarch. A citizen is not subject, but an equal participant in the polity . . . his issue is by natural ties his nationality . . . independent of the dominion or local jurisdiction, i.e, place.

    Two words . . . nature or native, blood or soil . . . they have distinctive meanings and you may not conflate them.

  41. Sallyven Says:

    Paralegalnm, great article and excellent research.

    FYI: Have you been keeping up with the Flores-Villar citizenship case, to be heard by SCOTUS in November? This Immigration Reform Law Institute amicus brief is very interesting, especially beginning on page 33:

    http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/09-10/09-5801_RespondentAmCuIRLI.pdf

    • paralegalnm Says:

      Interesting so far.

      “Congressional authority in these areas of law was considered as integrally related under every nation’s right of self-preservation as understood through the law of nations.”
      pg 13 of poster’s link. This, of course, refers to Vattel’s ‘Law of Nations,’ § 212, quoted in part as, “As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”

      The converse situation of § 212 is a nation ‘replenishing’ itself with children of NON-CITIZENS, rather than citizens. The natural rights and allegiance (jurisdiction thereof) being that of the father. This situation is a de facto invasion and dilution of sovereignty. The Courts have, therefore, acted Treasonously . . . Congress MUST act to protect its plenary power under Art. 1, Sec. 8.

      Finally, here is a recent post from the WND Obama Eligibility/Birth Certificate Forum. “Obama did recover his U.S. citizenship under 1953 INA at age 19 (versus losing it). So, a reasonable timeline is, 1) Obama born a British subject; 2) U.S. citizen at age two through five, and; 3) Indonesian through age 18. For Obama’s entire childhood, from birth to age 19, he was fully a U.S. citizen for only ages 2 through 5”

      • Sallyven Says:

        Did you see rxsid’s find of a misquote in the brief (and link to the original document) just posted over on Undead’s blog? Very interesting.

  42. Granite Says:

    Obama was NEVER a citizen of Indonesia, as a simple telephone call to the Indonesian Embassy in Washington will show ((202) 775 – 5200 and ask for the press officer.)

    Obama’s having been a dual citizen at birth has no effect on either US citizenship or Natural Born Citizen status. Thomas Jefferson was a dual citizen when he was president due to having been vote a full citizen of France by the French Natural Assembly. James Buchanan and Andrew Johnson are thought to have been dual citizens of Britain when they were born.

    There is NO evidence that the writers of the Constitution followed any of the recommendations of the Swiss philosopher Vattel,

    Yale Law Review wrote: “It is well settled that “native-born” citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born. It is also clear that persons born abroad of alien parents, who later become citizens by naturalization, do not.” (Jill A. Pryor, Yale Law Review, 1988)

    • paralegalnm Says:

      The stupidity and ignorance of this poster is tireless, obvious the product of years of practice and experience and/or drug abuse.

      I have to edit his comments for the wasted space . . .

  43. Granite Says:

    Sure, sure. You claim that the writers of the Constitution meant “two citizen parents” but you have not shown a single writer of the original Constitution or any American writers at the time that use the phrase Natural Born to refer to parents.

    • paralegalnm Says:

      Wow! A brief, concise, and polite comment.

      Natural is by Nature, i.e., not by Naturalization law (natural-ized), as in Ties of Nature vis a’ vis Blood, the Father . . .

      Citizen at Birth, or Born a Citizen is defined by statute, describing if the child is born on U.S. soil and having at least one U.S. citizen parent, or specific aliens if legal immigrants.

      Nature = Blood, single allegiance through the father
      Statute = Soil, allegiance granted by legislative power

      Recent court actions have blurred or summarily dismissed foreign jurisdiction over some aliens, especially illegal ones. By not formally applying for immigration and being granted legal domicile, the alien remains under the foreign jurisdiction. But, the court forces the state to accept citizenship rights of their children if born on U.S. soil.

      This interference of the judiciary, misinterpreting legislative act, is overstepping the well-established Plenary Power of Congress over Naturalization Law.

  44. Granite Says:

    The above is merely your speculation, not substantiated by anything. According to strict construction theory, beloved of conservatives, it is NOT permitted to interpret the law based on “penumbras” — or in this case mere speculation. You have to find the actual words that say something. The Constitution certainly does not say “blood and soil’ and neither does the Federalist Papers. Adams, Hamilton and the others at the time used Natural Born as a synonym for the phrase we use today “natural born,” which was not popular at the time. They used it simply to mean birth in the country.

    This was the ORIGINAL meaning of Natural Born Citizen, not one that is due to recent court decisions.

    • paralegalnm Says:

      Even in Britain, contrary to various commentaries, the child of an alien sojourner was NOT a subject. A child born within the dominion of an alien ‘out of the King’s allegiance’ was only a denizen or subject by the will of the King.

      Similarly, a child of an alien is NOT a U.S. citizen by birth on U.S. soil, except for a misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment by a judge. That judge’s holding, now law, will be held to be unconstitutional based on the Plenary Powers Doctrine, vis a’ vis Art. 1, Sec. 8.

      This is well-held, and the damage done to U.S. sovereignty and the safety of its citizens due to allowing this experiment in liberal interpretation to go on too long will have to be addressed.

      It may be that the Supreme Court review of the Obama Administration, joined by foreign sovereign states, suing the state of Arizona for investigating suspected illegal aliens for lack of proper identification, will reverse Plyer and numerous other invalid case law, and there will be Injuctive Relieve for the Federal Government to seal the borders and deport illegal aliens. It may also order that the ‘under the jurisdiction thereof’ clause be clarified and enforced, and that children of illegal aliens be deported as well, without the privilege of U.S. citizenship at birth.

    • paralegalnm Says:

      “Penumbras?” Have you even read my February 2009 blog, the first one on Barack Obama? It brings a lot of overlooked issues into the LIGHT.

      It is repleat with contemporaneous and historic citations of law.

      The mistinterpretation of the 14th Amendment by the late twentieth century courts, and a few ‘anglophile’ jurists relying too much on English law, caused the assumption that ‘native’ and ‘natural’ are indiscernable from one another.

      Nature is from ‘ties of nature, blood, jus sanguins.’ Native is from Soil birth, jus solis, from sovereign rights, plenary power of the King and of Congress.

  45. Granite Says:

    Re: “Nature is from ‘ties of nature, blood, jus sanguins.’ Native is from Soil birth, jus solis, from sovereign rights, plenary power of the King and of Congress.”

    Mere speculation. No American writing at the time of the Constitution ever said anything like that.

    You would like that to be the meaning of Natural Born Citizen, but it is not the meaning, and if the case were to go the the Supreme Court you would probably lose nine to nothing, eight to one or at the very least six to three. More than likely your case would be laughed out of court. In particular, the CONSERVATIVE justices would laugh themselves silly because they know the original meaning of Natural Born and because they would not insert the meaning “two citizen parents” based on a crazy theory of what natural law holds.

  46. paralegalnm Says:

    Actually, I can cite law and history of jurisprudence that proves the difference between Natural Law and Plenary Power.

    You are a block head . . . rocks for brains . . . if you really did your due diligence, you’d know what I was talking about. There is no ‘claim’ of privilege just by the chance of being born in the U.S., on U.S. soil. There are specific requirements.

    On the other hand, you inherit allegiance and nationality from your father, and no-one can legislate that away from you . . . enjoy your clues . . . so far, you haven’t got a clue what you are talking about.

    This is all in the law . . . I am not making it up. In addition, you know I’m right, and your denial is killing you.

  47. Granite Says:

    You have said from time to time that your assertion that Obama’s Natural Born Citizen status is based on natural law.

    There are a number of problems with that. First, if it were really natural law, then you would think that many, if not most, or well at least some countries would have specific regulations that their top leader must have had a father who was a citizen. If so, which country or countries do have such a law?

    Moderator — ANSWER: How about Monarchies?

    The rest was deleted due to length and repetitiveness . . . Please keep comments short and to the point.

  48. paralegalnm Says:

    Interesting stuff.

    It is common knowledge that monarchies did intermarry, e.g., France, Spain, Germany for purposes of diplomatic congeniality and alliance, and to prevent inbreeding.

    In that light, please cite Vattel and post the quotes . . . and suggest how that might influence the matter of allegiance to said royalty.

    Soil is by statute . . . those born of foreigners, or born out of the King’s allegiance through alienage, or foreign residency over the course of generations were not natural allegiants. Only those born of subjects (or citizens in our case), declaratory subjects by decrees from the King, were natural allegiants.

  49. Granite Says:

    Re: “In that light, please cite Vattel and post the quotes . . . and suggest how that might influence the matter of allegiance to said royalty.”

    This will be difficult because I did not bookmark the spot and because the searchable Vattel does not allow clips.

    (1) “Peter the Great proposed only the welfare of the empire when he left the crown to his wife. He knew that heroine to be the most capable person to follow his views, and perfect the great things that he had begun, and therefore preferred her to her son, who was still too young. If we often found on the throne such elevated minds as Peter’s , a nation could not adopt a wiser plan…than to instruct the prince by a fundamental law with the power of appointing a successor.”

    Vattel was referring to Catherine I of Russia, who was born in Latvia, which at the time of her birth was under the control of the King of Sweden, a traditional enemy of Russia. Here is the chapter of the searchable Vattel that I am citing (http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/vattel/vatt-105.htm)

    I have just found a searchable Vattel that allows you to clip:

    ‘The states of the principality of Neufchatel have often, in the form of a juridical sentence, pronounced on the succession to the sovereignty. In the year 1707, they decided between a great number of competitors, and their decision in favour of the king of Prussia was acknowledged by all Europe in the treaty of Utrecht.” (And no comment that this was a bad thing.) (Found in: Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Or, Principles of the Law of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns, with Three Early Essays on the Origin and Nature of Natural Law and on Luxury (LF ed.) > CHAPTER V: Of States Elective, Successive or Hereditary, and of those called Patrimonial. (http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=advanced_search.php)

    Re implications and “those born of foreigners, or born out of the King’s allegiance through alienage, or foreign residency over the course of generations were not natural allegiants. ”

    Answer: You are not quoting Vattel, are you?

    A fuller answer is that Vattel apparently does not care whether kings have “allegiance” before they are sworn in, since obviously people who were not born in the kingdom or empire and persons not the children of citizens or subjects were allowed to be sovereigns. Perhaps he thought that the oath that most sovereigns must swear was sufficient.

    My point is that here is one authority on natural law who is asserting that the citizenship of the father of a sovereign is irrelevant to the sovereign’s allegiance to the country or to the sovereign being a good sovereign.

    • paralegalnm Says:

      Catherine as queen was married to Peter the Great.

      What dynamic do you suppose imposed her allegiance?

      As I mentioned earlier, royalty and natural law was influenced by and endowed by the papacy. Once annointed as king of a particular province or kingdom, the king was the monarch and ‘father’ of the region.

      Neufchatel was an interesting microcosm balancing its independence in regulating its own affairs with the royal houses and treaties going on all around it, such as in Prussia, France, and Switzerland.

      The United States was and is unique as a constitutional Republic, freeing itself through the Protestant movement from the papacy. I believe that now, the papacy being absorbed by a worldwide malaise of evil and lawlessness, the United States is falling victim through international intrigues, now aided by the alien-born Obama and his Marxist associates, to the destruction of U.S. sovereignty and the family . . . and free citizens.

      I just got a notice today that I have to report to all my credit card merchant services a 1099 of my annual deposits. This is ridiculous because I report the deposits as income . . . this is extra paperwork and, if errors occur in processing or reporting, a cause for headaches and dispute resolution. It is an attack upon small business by an overbloated federal bureaucracy.

  50. Granite Says:

    Re: ‘Catherine as queen was married to Peter the Great.’

    Answer: Remember that it was you who said that natural law required that Natural Born status must come from THE FATHER. Was her father Russian? Answer: No.

    Re: “What dynamic do you suppose imposed her allegiance?”

    • paralegalnm Says:

      Dumbass . . . never heard of derivative naturalization?

      You are stuck on stupid . . . when you have your embarrassing moment of epiphany, don’t bother apologizing for wasting my time.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: